- 117 -
rights as to the allocation of the partnership interests, and
(9) petitioners’ sons were at all times in control of the
transaction. I also query as to this case why a charity would
ever want to receive a minority limited partnership interest, but
for an understanding that this interest would be redeemed quickly
for cash, and find relevant that the interest was subject to the
call provision that could be exercised at any time.
4. Conclusion
The majority has placed its stamp of approval on a
transaction that not only is a prime example of clear taxpayer
abuse but has as its predominant (if not sole) purpose the
avoidance of Federal taxes. The majority has done so either
because it does not recognize the abuse or, more likely, that it
feels impotent to stop the abuse. The majority has gone as far
as to condone taxpayer-abusive behavior by allowing petitioners
to deduct a charitable contribution for amounts which will never
benefit a charity. For these and the other reasons stated
herein, I dissent.
VASQUEZ, J., agrees with this dissenting opinion.
Page: Previous 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Last modified: May 25, 2011